Why not require VIOLENT CRIMINALS to "register" like sex offenders have to??

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Another thread got me thinking about this again.

Not only do lots of municipalities, states, etc. require sex offenders to register with the local police, they are more and more passing laws to limit where these offenders may live.

What possible excuse can the authorities and the government have for not requiring ANY violent felon to "register" and make his presence known to any community in which he might live?

Do we really take sex crimes so much more seriously than violent crimes? Is it so much less to worry about that you have a repeat-violent armed-robber criminal living next door than a child molester? To be perfectly frank, I don't give a fuck whether the guy next door is a child molester. But if he's got a history of fucking armed robbery, armed burglary, murder, or aggravated battery, yeah, those things do concern me!

What is with society now? They're chasing sex offenders out of every community they can -- what happens when EVERY community bans sex offenders? They already are trying to figure out what to do with sex offenders who might need to go to a public shelter during a hurricane... This whole, "they may not live within 1500 feet of a school" thing is just so much bullshit useless posturing -- as though that means a molester can't get near kids somehow!

So what's the deal? Wouldn't you like just as many restrictions against habitual violent criminals -- who demonstrate plenty of their own incorrigibility and recidivism -- as we have against sex offenders?

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[rasmack 0]

What about requiring traffic offenders to register with authorities and put out a big sign in the front yard saying "I AM A BAD DRIVER!"? Who knows, they might run someone over one day.

HF #682, Team Dirty Sanchez #227
“I simply hate, detest, loathe, despise, and abhor redundancy.”
- Not quite Oscar Wilde...

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Do we really take sex crimes so much more seriously than violent crimes? Is it so much less to worry about that you have a repeat-violent armed-robber criminal living next door than a child molester? To be perfectly frank, I don't give a fuck whether the guy next door is a child molester. But if he's got a history of fucking armed robbery, armed burglary, murder, or aggravated battery, yeah, those things do concern me!

The notion is that sex offenders have a much higher rate of recidivism and are ticking time bombs. Seems like a very large hammer for a specific problem, though.

[unformed 0]

I think we should require all degenerates to register.

I don't want to live next to an alcoholic. What if one night, he's wasted and drives into my house.

I don't want to live next to drug users either. What if they need a fix one day and come into my house and steal my stuff.

Or immigrants. You never know what they're going to do next.

This ad space for sale.

[RhondaLea 3]

Wait.

How can you object to drug testing (invasion of privacy) and advocate registration for violent offenders (invasion of privacy)?

Someone who is released from jail has paid his penalty. Forcing him to register so that his neighbors are aware of his offense is an invasion of his privacy.

Violent offenders are not quite the same as sex offenders. They may continue to be violent, but I've never heard that violence is the same deep-rooted compulsion as sexual predation.

rl

If you don't know where you're going, you should know where you came from. Gullah Proverb

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

How can you object to drug testing (invasion of privacy) and advocate registration for violent offenders (invasion of privacy)?

Just playing devil's advocate here - but the difference between randomly testing people who have not committed any proven action of incompetence or law breaking is completely different than registration of someone convicted of actual acts of serious societal damage. It's the difference of indicating someone who MIGHT have, or Maybe will do, something wrong vs indicating someone we KNOW has done something wrong.

At least it's based on real and validated actions, not just a subjective moral position on 'could be'.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[RhondaLea 3]

Quote

At least it's based on real and validated actions, not just a subjective moral position on 'could be'.

Don't help him. Make him work. Keep him busy. Maybe it'll keep him out of more trouble.

You're going to catch a lot of people in that "violent offenders" net, y'know. And some of them, at least, are never going to hurt anyone again once they get out of jail.

So what kind of violent offenders are we talking about?

rl

If you don't know where you're going, you should know where you came from. Gullah Proverb

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

So what kind of violent offenders are we talking about?

Smokers, mimes

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[juanesky 0]

Are you forgetting those in car pool lanes?

"According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon

[Nightingale 0]

Many violent crimes are unlikely to be repeated, unlike sex crimes. For example, the guy (or woman) who goes nuts when he/she finds his/her significant other in bed with someone else and beats the SO or his/her partner to death. It's a crime of passion, and not likely to happen again. The person committing that crime is probably not a danger to the general public. I could see registering serial killers or people who have committed acts of violence against strangers.

However, I'm against the sex-offender registry. I think it causes a lot more problems than it solves.

[Richards 0]

Sounds like a good idea. Let the community know who he is so they are aware of the risk he presents. It also will encourage people to contact the authorities at the first sign of trouble from that individual. This will pressure him to conduct himself in a socially acceptable manner.

In addition to this I also support collecting DNA from violent criminals (not everyone)to create a data bank. This would further make some of these clowns check their behavior.

Richards

My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

[GTAVercetti 0]

Quote

Quote

So what kind of violent offenders are we talking about?

Smokers, mimes

Yeah, mimes for sure.

Some of my favorite mime quotes:

"Now, if you have trouble hitting your objective, you secondary targets are here and here: an accordion factory and a mime school."

and

"Great. Good night. Guy shows up looking like a mime from hell.
(beat)
Least he didn't do that 'walking against the wind' shit; I hate that"

Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

[BillyVance 34]

Well, there is already a parole system in effect that requires parolees to check in with their P.O. And if they don't, the authorities go track them down. I admit it's not a perfect system, but it's something.

And yes, I would like to know if a convicted murderer moved into my area.

"Mediocre people don't like high achievers, and high achievers don't like mediocre people." - SIX TIME National Champion coach Nick Saban

[justinb138 0]

My view:

If they're enough of a risk where people need to know about them, why are they not in prison?

[kallend 1,644]

In the good old days they'd just ship 'em off to Australia.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

I think we should require all degenerates to register.

I don't want to live next to an alcoholic. What if one night, he's wasted and drives into my house.

I don't want to live next to drug users either. What if they need a fix one day and come into my house and steal my stuff.

Or immigrants. You never know what they're going to do next.

If, by your hyperbole, you mean you oppose all those people having to register, should I take you to mean that you don't think sex offenders should have to register?

I mean, I didn't offer the suggestion that nose-pickers should have to register; I said "violent criminals".

How does it serve a community to know where the sex offenders are -- who are mostly a threat to children and women -- but not to know where the violent criminals are, who are a threat to everyone?


-

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[christoofar 0]

Quote

I think we should require all degenerates to register.

I don't want to live next to an alcoholic. What if one night, he's wasted and drives into my house.

I don't want to live next to drug users either. What if they need a fix one day and come into my house and steal my stuff.

Or immigrants. You never know what they're going to do next.

All drag queens and students must register. I definately don't want to be in a building where there is loud dance music at all sorts of hours and college students constantling going in and out of their apartments all the time and lodging all sorts of crap down the trash chutes.

____________________________________________________________
I'm RICK JAMES! Fo shizzle.

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

Wait.

How can you object to drug testing (invasion of privacy) and advocate registration for violent offenders (invasion of privacy)?

Someone who is released from jail has paid his penalty. Forcing him to register so that his neighbors are aware of his offense is an invasion of his privacy.

Violent offenders are not quite the same as sex offenders. They may continue to be violent, but I've never heard that violence is the same deep-rooted compulsion as sexual predation.

rl

If the state has the power to "invade the privacy" of sex offenders, it has the power to "invade the privacy" of any offender. Constitutional rights, and their retention, are not prejudiced based on the type of crime of which one is guilty.

Either you support the idea of keeping tabs on people who have been convicted but have "paid their debt" or you do not. You can't have a double standard.

PLENTY of violent offenders repeat their crimes -- do you honestly believe there's a shortage of recidivists, when every day you open the paper and there's the story of a guy with "a lengthy criminal record" doing another crime against someone?

And in direct answer to your first question, there is no conflict in my position: the former is an invasion of someone NOT convicted of ANYTHING; the latter is a penalty aspect of having been convicted of a crime.

If, as you say, the state has no sway over someone once he's paid his debt, then convicts would across-the-board have all of their former rights back. As it stands, it is a great challenge to be a felon and get back your rights to vote and own guns. Do you have a problem with that, too? Or do you want the sentence to be the sentence, and when the guy is let out of jail -- EVEN A MURDERER -- he gets his gun rights back?

It's easy to say you want people's punishment to be the prison time. The problem is, we note that we can't keep a burglar or something in prison til he dies, but we also recognize that he did demonstrate what kind of person he is, and he's unlikely to have just magically changed while in prison.

My own position is that if you get a prison sentence and serve it completely, when you get let out, you should have all of your rights restored automatically. But I feel that if that's going to happen, far more people need to be in prison til the day they die.

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

My view:

If they're enough of a risk where people need to know about them, why are they not in prison?

That's my view, too.

Anyone who is released from prison ought to be someone that we feel is worthy of having all his rights and freedoms restored.

If we don't feel good enough about him to give him that, it's proof that we really don't feel he should be out of prison, and sentences should be adjusted to reflect that.

-

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[unformed 0]

Quote

Quote

I think we should require all degenerates to register.

I don't want to live next to an alcoholic. What if one night, he's wasted and drives into my house.

I don't want to live next to drug users either. What if they need a fix one day and come into my house and steal my stuff.

Or immigrants. You never know what they're going to do next.

If, by your hyperbole, you mean you oppose all those people having to register, should I take you to mean that you don't think sex offenders should have to register?

I mean, I didn't offer the suggestion that nose-pickers should have to register; I said "violent criminals".

How does it serve a community to know where the sex offenders are -- who are mostly a threat to children and women -- but not to know where the violent criminals are, who are a threat to everyone?

-

To be honest, no, I don't think sex offenders should be made to register. If they are a threat to society, and it's been proven that they are very likely to attack again, they shouldn't be a part of society.

This ad space for sale.

[Airman1270 0]

I say we get rid of this whole "registry" thing. It's already being abused by forcing people to register even though they pose no threat to anyone. You mess up, then serve your sentence. Okay, now comes time for restoration and a second chance.

A guy who diddles with a pre-pubescent child should be spending a few years in prison. (If you want to pile on, let the child's father know where he lives following his release...)

But engaging in consensual behavior with a young lady who's old enough to know what she's doing, while technically illegal, does not mean that the "offender" is a threat to your family. At best, he's a "threat" to your young teenager if she has not developed the moral conviction to say "no."

This attitude of continually piling on, narrowly restricting where ex-cons can live, work, etc. will backfire. The poor sap has served his sentence and has most likely learned a severe lesson. He wants to live his life quietly, without being noticed or causing trouble. But if he's constantly being harassed to the point where he can't get a job, find a place to live, etc. he will eventually react in a manner that will be considered by many to be "undesireable."

Then people will demand even more laws, and the cycle continues.

If you want the police to know where he's living, fine, but don't make it public knowledge.

Cheers,
Jon

[unformed 0]

The additional thing is, right now, it's very easy to say, "Register all sexual offenders."

Think of the children.

Tomorrow, they'll say "Register all violent criminals."

Think of society.

And we go from there.

This ad space for sale.

[kallend 1,644]

Quote

The additional thing is, right now, it's very easy to say, "Register all sexual offenders."

Think of the children.

Tomorrow, they'll say "Register all violent criminals."

Think of society.

And we go from there.

Right - soon it will be register all drivers and all pilots, and before long everyone will be required to be registered at birth and have a certificate to prove it. Down the slippery slope...

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[shropshire 0]

They have already been talking about a National DNA register for everyone new born or on entering the country....


This is a few years old....

Quote

Judge calls for everyone to be on DNA database

Everyone living in Britain or entering the country should have their DNA recorded on a national database, a leading judge said last night.

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[kallend 1,644]

Quote

They have already been talking about a National DNA register for everyone new born or on entering the country....


This is a few years old....

Quote

Judge calls for everyone to be on DNA database

Everyone living in Britain or entering the country should have their DNA recorded on a national database, a leading judge said last night.

It's like the frog in water - raise the temperature slowly enough and it will let you boil it.

WE are allowing this to happen.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.